# wish lists

Richard Godard (janus@cam.org)
Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:35:32 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 10:19 -0800 7/23/96, Judy Anderson wrote:
    >   Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:56:19 PDT
    >   From: bartmoss@mistral.co.uk
    >
    >   The MOO language should have the syntax of:
    >	   a += 1;
    >
    >Ew!  Please, no.  Please do not rush to turn MOO into C.
    >
    >Keep it simple.  MOO is a great first language.  Let's not complexify
    >it for little gain.
    >
    >      Judy Anderson yclept yduJ          'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
    > yduJ@cs.stanford.edu (personal mail)   yduJ@harlequin.com (work-related)
    >	Join the League for Programming Freedom, lpf@uunet.uu.net

    I would like to second yudJ concern here.

    I'm not in a hurry to see perl-like stuff neither.

    If there are to be synyax changed, I would rather like see obj.foo = bar;
    to implicitely call set_property_value(obj, "foo", bar), so a wrappers
    assignement on property assignement. (and of course bar = obj.foo; would do
    an implicit call to property_value(obj, "foo")...
    Same could be true for verbs call... obj:(verb)(@args) same as
    call_verb(obj, verb, args)... Also the possibilities to make a wrapper for
    bf likes pass() would be nice (if such wrapper was possible, implementing
    passable/unpassable verbs would be trivial, while right now it's not easy
    to do in-db.)

    Janus